A quick question: I plan to attend law school straight out of undergrad. I was wondering if applying to law school during my final year at undergrad would place me at a disadvantage for HYS. This obviously means that I won't have any significant WE; I'll also be graduating in three years.

I understand that the numbers are the most important factors in any law school application ... but softs/WE seem to be important considerations for HYS (particularly for Y and S; I've also heard that H has a strong preference for WE ... is this true?)

Thanks in advance!

Last edited by pn40 on Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, pretty false. I mean, sure, if you have GREAT numbers you can get H, and if you have GREAT numbers + GREAT recs/ps, etc, you can get Y/S, but you are definitely at a disadvantage. H doesn't care that much about "softs" in the sense of having impressive or unique life experiences, but they do give a boost for work experience. Y and S are more of a black box, but (especially at Y) you need numbers AND something else. It's totally possible to have that something else without WE, but it can also help quite a bit.

pn40 wrote:A quick question: I plan to attend law school straight out of undergrad. I was wondering if applying to law school during my final year at undergrad would place me at a disadvantage for HYS.

Certainly possible and many people do it. Having said that, I would caution about going straight from undergrad if you're graduating in 3 years. You can use that 4th year to get work experience and will still be on track with other people your age that go straight to law school after 4 years of undergrad, only you will have a leg-up with a year of real work experience. I did go straight from undergrad to law school, but that is solely because I was worried about not having the motivation to go back to school after working.

Elston Gunn wrote:And the answer is: yes, it will put you at a disadvantage.

Not being a Rhodes scholar is also a disadvantage if you look at it that way. Having good WE can obviously be good, but as everyone has said it isn't in any way a requirement and work won't change your numbers. It's still a soft and helps/hurts you in the same way.

These are things I tell myself as a K-JD sitting on the Held at Harvard list.

Elston Gunn wrote:And the answer is: yes, it will put you at a disadvantage.

Not being a Rhodes scholar is also a disadvantage if you look at it that way. Having good WE can obviously be good, but as everyone has said it isn't in any way a requirement and work won't change your numbers. It's still a soft and helps/hurts you in the same way.

These are things I tell myself as a K-JD sitting on the Held at Harvard list.

So at one median and above another, but held. And you think being K-JD wasn't a disadvantage?

Getting work experience is nothing like being a Rhodes Scholar. Anyone can get work experience by simply choosing to wait a year.

Before the current H adm dean I would have said that just having the numbers is sufficient as hls use to admit about 40%-50% of its class as straight through students. However, the last 3 years has seen this amount drop to the low 20s so it does seem like its a bit more difficult applying to hls straight out of college now (in comparison to before when as long as u were above the medians u were relatively safe)

Elston Gunn wrote:And the answer is: yes, it will put you at a disadvantage.

Not being a Rhodes scholar is also a disadvantage if you look at it that way. Having good WE can obviously be good, but as everyone has said it isn't in any way a requirement and work won't change your numbers. It's still a soft and helps/hurts you in the same way.

These are things I tell myself as a K-JD sitting on the Held at Harvard list.

So at one median and above another, but held. And you think being K-JD wasn't a disadvantage?

Getting work experience is nothing like being a Rhodes Scholar. Anyone can get work experience by simply choosing to wait a year.

My point was that it isn't something they look at on your application and go "oh this isn't good, no work experience.

You're right though in saying it could be a reason I haven't been accepted at Harvard. The bigger issue is most likely that I applied the day before the deadline.

ScratchableItch wrote:I'm applying straight out of undergrad and you can see how I've been doing in my profile. I've done fantastically at CCN, but have heard nothing at HYS for months.

Yeah, this is exactly my point. One of my K-JD friends has a Ruby but none of HYS. Considering there are far fewer Rubys than H acceptances, and only about 20% of accepted students at H are K-JDs, I think it's fair to assume that H views lack of WE much differently from CCN.

My point was that it isn't something they look at on your application and go "oh this isn't good, no work experience.

This is just a matter of semantics, I guess, but my impression is that that's exactly what they think. It's not horrible, but it's something you have to make up for in another way.

Anyway, at this point I think the answer to OP's question is clear: you'll be better off if you spend a year working before you apply, but if you have the numbers (+ other stuff with Y/S) then there's no reason you can't make it as a K-JD.

Actually, pretty false. I mean, sure, if you have GREAT numbers you can get H, and if you have GREAT numbers + GREAT recs/ps, etc, you can get Y/S, but you are definitely at a disadvantage. H doesn't care that much about "softs" in the sense of having impressive or unique life experiences, but they do give a boost for work experience. Y and S are more of a black box, but (especially at Y) you need numbers AND something else. It's totally possible to have that something else without WE, but it can also help quite a bit.

+1

This is exactly the right answer.

Even Yale, which is the worst of the three in this respect, admits 20% from undergrad, so it is possible - just very much harder.

Thanks for the replies, everyone! Do you think it would be possible to predict the minimum gpa/LSAT which would be necessary for me to have a solid chance at admission without WE? (particularly for HLS)

Also - a largely unrelated question: do the HYS schools factor in the prestige of the ug institution when making admissions decisions? (I would assume that this doesn't happen at H ... not sure about Y&S)

pn40 wrote:Thanks for the replies, everyone! Do you think it would be possible to predict the minimum gpa/LSAT which would be necessary for me to have a solid chance at admission without WE? (particularly for HLS)

Also - a largely unrelated question: do the HYS schools factor in the prestige of the ug institution when making admissions decisions? (I would assume that this doesn't happen at H ... not sure about Y&S)

3.85+GPA & 177+ LSAT is pretty solid for admissions at HLS. 3.75+ still has a shot, though the odds drop. You don't want your resume to be devoid of content, though. UG prestige probably gives a minor bump at H.

pn40 wrote:Thanks for the replies, everyone! Do you think it would be possible to predict the minimum gpa/LSAT which would be necessary for me to have a solid chance at admission without WE? (particularly for HLS)

Also - a largely unrelated question: do the HYS schools factor in the prestige of the ug institution when making admissions decisions? (I would assume that this doesn't happen at H ... not sure about Y&S)

To add to the above, I think UG prestige is definitely a small but significant bump at Yale as well.

I came from undergrad (a good but not super prestigious school), had median numbers for Harvard and did fine, although I applied really early which helped. That said, that was two years ago and I know the percentage of students direct from undergrad has fallen since then. Didn't apply to Stanford though a member of my graduating class went direct there. I'm sure he had good credentials and I don't think being direct hurt him.

K-JD here, in at HYS. It definitely can be done, but my experience has been that admissions officers frequently commented on the parts of my application that seemed to make me more mature (married, for example). I also took two years off between my freshman and sophomore years of college, so I'm a bit older than most K-JDers.

I would advise against graduating in three years just to get into law school quickly. First, I really think that being a year younger is a disadvantage: I suspect that most law schools, all else equal, would rather have a 23- or 24-year old than a 20-year old. Second, spending less time at your undergraduate school hurts diversity in class choice, writing experience, extracurriculars, and the time it takes to develop the sorts of relationships that turn into great letters of recommendation. You're going to be a lawyer for fifty years. Don't short yourself by flying through UG to get into law school; it could significantly decrease your options for schools and scholarships.

That may sound a bit hypocritical coming from a K-JDer, but again, admissions people talked about the things that evidenced maturity. I don't think too many adcomms are going to be impressed that you got through UG in three years.

I'm in this exact position and I'm somewhat disheartened by the advice (but it's excellent advice, so keep it up!). I was going to post something about this soon myself. I'm sitting at a LSAC GPA of over 4.0 at a Canadian university (A+s save my life), and writing my LSAT this June. I'm also graduating in 3 years, so I'd be applying next fall as I enter my senior year. I wish now I had taken the standard 4-year track though, but at the time I felt that saving the money from another year would help me a lot.

I'm in a bind since I feel that despite a stellar GPA and a hopefully (fingers crossed) a decent LSAT, I don't feel like I have the character depth that HYS wants that work experience and other soft factors can add to an application. I've done the typical government internship, executive positions in campus government and clubs, whatever, but beyond that I have nothing amazing that would warrant to a closer look at an overall undistinguished application beyond the numbers. And its generally considered to be a numbers game, but as an international, I feel like not having the experience that many of the people I've seen on TLS have puts me at a disadvantage. Any further advice?